The point is, for what the Civil War cost, they could have, for example, bought all the slaves and freed them, like the British crown did. The South may have seceded to preserve slavery, but the North did not go to war to end slavery, but to prevent secession (from Lincoln's own words). The North didn't go to war with slave-owning northern states, did it?

Slavery was economically inefficient, and with the northern states abolishing slavery, the South would have let go of it in possibly a short time. Low wage workers are much more economically efficient. And only 6% of southerners owned slaves. They would have had a hard time competing.

If you don't like the argument, take it up with Thomas DiLorenzo, the controversial professor at Loyola University. Or reference the two books cited in the post above. Or Tom Woods Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

I've never heard of the Abbeville institute. Apparently it's a neo-confederate think tank with interest in secession according to wiki and the SPLC.

Abbeville Institute (wiki)

In 1998, Livingston was instrumental in the founding of the Abbeville Institute.[citation needed] According to its website, the Institute is "an association of scholars in higher education devoted to a critical study of what is true and valuable in the Southern tradition". Its principal activities are a summer school for graduate students and an annual scholar's conference.[4] It focuses particularly on issues of secession which are kept out of mainstream academia.[5] The Institute is named for the South Carolina hometown of John Calhoun, and a pre-Civil War hotbed of secession.[6]

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/winter/the-ideologues


As for the argument itself, I don't know what size has to do with democratic principles. Either you believe in them or you do not. As the world gets bigger, the need to work together is increased, not decreased, IMO.

You know, that's exactly the issue they fought the civil war over starting in 1861. Seven of the Southern states agreed with you, and 25 Northern states were dead against it, and raised armies on the basis of preserving the Union.

The Baron de Tocqueville spent a bit of time talking about secession in his 1835 book Democracy in America, correctly picking that it was the Southern states most likely to try and also that they would be the most harmed by doing so. Some of his other predictions were less successful, he didn't expect the Federal Government would be able to quell a popular uprising, he thought the Union would split apart instead.
In reply to this comment by pyloricvalve:
Sorry I don't get it. What's wrong with this idea? If states could secede you could have a more diverse set of regimes and people could choose more the style of government they prefer by moving state... It seems like quite a good idea. I'm not an American so maybe I'm missing something but why is there animosity about people suggesting the idea? I don't mean to provoke. I'm just curious...

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Sorry I don't get it. What's wrong with this idea? If states could secede you could have a more diverse set of regimes and people could choose more the style of government they prefer by moving state... It seems like quite a good idea. I'm not an American so maybe I'm missing something but why is there animosity about people suggesting the idea? I don't mean to provoke. I'm just curious...

The majority of the people creating and signing these petitions are the ones who are butt-hurt over the re-election of Obama. As it was already pointed out in the video, a lot of the states involved in the petition to secede are in the south and below the Mason-Dixon line, which were part of the confederacy during the US Civil War. Also of note is that, though correct me if I am wrong, majority of the states involved are also states where the electoral votes went to Romney.


The biggest issue I have with people creating the secession petitions is the absurdity of it, especially in today's world where countries are eyeballing us more than ever. It is a given now that the US isn't much of a country to look up to as a "leader." Also added is how some of the folks in the middle-east hate our guts. Timing is a major factor when a group of people want their state to secede from the country. This would raise an eyebrow if this was proposed when the country was actually stable, financially and militarily. But we're not living in such times.

The people wanting this fail to realize just how much of a bad idea this is if they do not think of the consequences if such secession were to happen. Hypothetically, the whole country would be in ruins, and invites those with extreme agendas to infiltrate the new and old country. It doesn't take a genius to see that no country can ever transition smoothly from one form to another, as evident with people revolt and overthrowing leaderships.

When GWBush got reelected, I was personally disappointed. But that doesn't mean I should just throw my arms up in anger and demand that so-and-so state secede from the country. No, I lived with it and dealt with it. Those idiots should do the same, instead of bickering over a mere election that didn't go their way. Rather than trying to make the whole situation worse, adapt and deal with it. In 4 years, the whole country will either be better off than now, worse, or be the same. And by then, we can judge the POTUS if he was good enough to turn the country around after the shitty mess GWBush left us.

Even if Obama has to look at the petitions (the ones that passed the minimum signature requirement), I highly doubt he'll give it a second to think it over. He'll glance over it and then throw it into the trash right there. I can only hope that the people in the Senate and in the House are smart enough to see the absurdity in them.

Why wouldn't someone shoot at Rick Perry after all his secession talk? Or are we just happy to let Texas go?

>> ^quantumushroom:

They tried, and had every right to do so. But Lincoln and Friends, right or wrong, waged war to stop them. Now, of course, we have a gigantic, out-of-control federal leviathan, just like the South a-feared. Enjoy!
As for the rest of it, different beliefs for everyone, my friends. It would be nice for the left if the Kenyawaiian had NO ties to islam, but even though these snippets in this video lack context, why do they exist at all?
Obama is likely a closet atheist, but who knows?
Californian idiots keep voting in socialists over and over again even as their economy atrophies and illegal immigration runs rampant. There are actual numbers to demonstrate this, but they conflict with the leftist "belief system".
Intolerance is a staple of the left as much as the right. Same concept, different targets.

>> ^Locque:
If the South wants to secede, I think they should be allowed to do so.



I think equating Chuck Norris and friends' cries for secession in the modern era to the situation in the civil war is kinda silly. It would be like blaming the modern day church for the crusades.

Also, you seem to realise claims that he's a muslim are completely fucking stupid, but you are extremely consistent in refusing the acknowledge the wrongs of the right (I've been reading your posts for years dude, old hat)

I think it's fallacious to accuse the left of being as intolerant as the right. There is an unbelievable history among the left of idiocy, hypocrisy, failure, and all that other good stuff, but racism and bigotry are absolutely the territory of the right. Fascistic political correctness and a refusal to acknowledge existing problems are more the political left's tools of the trade.

On the whole though, i feel chuffed. Does being on the receiving end of one of QM's posts mean I've arrived? WILL VIDEOSIFT NOTICE ME NOW?

@quantumushroom, sounds to me like that's 5 different ways of saying slavery.

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South

From the site you cited:

[T]he southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture.

So, the Southern economy was based on slavery, the Northern economy wasn't.


2. States versus federal rights

As I said before, the origin of this concept was the schism over slavery. The South wanted to be able to hold slaves, and the North wanted them free. The compromise was the concept of "state's rights".


3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents

Hey, that one's obviously about slavery.


4. Growth of the Abolition Movement

Uhh, that one too.


5. The election of Abraham Lincoln

From the site you cited:

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

And yes, Lincoln said otherwise. Amazingly enough, the South projected all their worst fears and prejudices on a well educated, liberal, African-friendly President from Illinois back in 1860 too.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shuac:
Well, to be fair to QM, Obama is, in fact, being a vindictive dick if he's withholding federal aid for political reasons. But even if he was...the point of the sift is this: Not long ago, Texas spoke openly about secession. Are people in Perry's staff, Perry's constituency, even Perry's opponents...appreciative of the hypocrisy here or are they all okie-dokie with it?
Call me a fuckin loon but it's kind of overt to me.

Yes but why would be fair to QM...he's never been fair about anything never presented his arguments in a fair way. I'm all for being fair but at some point you just have to get rid of the people who are complete assholes and not pay them any attention.

Oof, wrong attitude, dude. I'm not implacably devoted to any particular position except for the truth. I digs it. I'm a big ol' sucker for the truth and if someone makes a good point, regardless of how I feel about his other opinions, I'll say so.


Fuck you I am Truth!

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shuac:
Well, to be fair to QM, Obama is, in fact, being a vindictive dick if he's withholding federal aid for political reasons. But even if he was...the point of the sift is this: Not long ago, Texas spoke openly about secession. Are people in Perry's staff, Perry's constituency, even Perry's opponents...appreciative of the hypocrisy here or are they all okie-dokie with it?
Call me a fuckin loon but it's kind of overt to me.

Yes but why would be fair to QM...he's never been fair about anything never presented his arguments in a fair way. I'm all for being fair but at some point you just have to get rid of the people who are complete assholes and not pay them any attention.

Oof, wrong attitude, dude. I'm not implacably devoted to any particular position except for the truth. I digs it. I'm a big ol' sucker for the truth and if someone makes a good point, regardless of how I feel about his other opinions, I'll say so.

>> ^shuac:

Well, to be fair to QM, Obama is, in fact, being a vindictive dick if he's withholding federal aid for political reasons. But even if he was...the point of the sift is this: Not long ago, Texas spoke openly about secession. Are people in Perry's staff, Perry's constituency, even Perry's opponents...appreciative of the hypocrisy here or are they all okie-dokie with it?
Call me a fuckin loon but it's kind of overt to me.


Yes but why would be fair to QM...he's never been fair about anything never presented his arguments in a fair way. I'm all for being fair but at some point you just have to get rid of the people who are complete assholes and not pay them any attention.

Well, to be fair to QM, Obama is, in fact, being a vindictive dick if he's withholding federal aid for political reasons. But even if he was...the point of the sift is this: Not long ago, Texas spoke openly about secession. Are people in Perry's staff, Perry's constituency, even Perry's opponents...appreciative of the hypocrisy here or are they all okie-dokie with it?

Call me a fuckin loon but it's kind of overt to me.

I recall going to the Museum of the Confederacy (across the street from the WAAAAY worth it D-Day Museum), and in a very discrete corner, they mention that, in the early days of Secession, a number of Freedmen came to the various recruitment offices, asking to join up. In their eyes, they weren't going to let those damn Yankees push them around. The commanding officer of New Orleans very politely stated, "No," and let the matter drop. Which is everything you need to know about slavery being the root cause of the civil war.

I can't imagine, even with the overt racism of the south, that they would go back to slavery (even rhetorically). However, I think that serfdom and open racism would definitely be part of their Southern moral "philosophy".

I don't think they could survive without the North and West's tax money, so it probably would never happen. Not to mention the North's response would probably be along the line of the response towards the 'Branch Davidians'.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^vaporlock:
I'd love to see the South secede from the Union. I'm sure it wouldn't be long before their roads were unpaved and they were in a war with Mexico. Their low wages and corrupt politicians might do well in the current world economy.

I think my main curiosity about such a hypothetical is how close to reinstating slavery they'd get.
Mostly though, I wish people would recognize that secession would be massively ugly for everyone.